Official Errata Suggestion/Discussion Thread (changes you'd like to see made)

Page 43 of 44 Previous  1 ... 23 ... 42, 43, 44  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Official Errata Suggestion/Discussion Thread (changes you'd like to see made)

Post  ZamuelNow on Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:17 am

I need to find them since I'm pretty sure it's been suggested before but the main things Caltrops needs are the ability to also use it on an ally (serves alternate tanking concepts via deterrent) and changing it to an attack (more options for the damage it does).
avatar
ZamuelNow
Freakin' Alicorn Princess

Gender : Male
Posts : 3284
Join date : 2013-03-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Errata Suggestion/Discussion Thread (changes you'd like to see made)

Post  Xel Unknown on Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:38 am

Personally I don't think Caltraps needs to be turned into attack. If it still works under the whole you or target ally phrasing that could work as a full utility and in my opinion should. (cause it's neat to have sometimes damage or loss of life as I argue it should use) But if it works under like when the enemy next attack they get damage or loss of life, then that version could be labeled an attack.

I in fact suggest it might be changed into something like this:

[-1] Caltrops - Minor Utility
Choose One:
a) Until the end of your next turn, any creature that attacks you or target ally suffers 2d6 loss of life
b) Target enemy will suffer 2d4 loss of life when it makes it's next attack.


Or we do something like this with two moves one attack version one utility:

[-1] Caltrops - Minor Utility
Until the end of your next turn, any creature that attacks you or target ally suffers 2d6 loss of life

[-1] Pain Spikes - Minor Attack
Target enemy suffers 2d4 loss of life when it makes it's next attack.
avatar
Xel Unknown
Freakin' Alicorn Princess

Gender : Male
Posts : 7018
Join date : 2012-08-30
Age : 27
Location : Somewhere, nowhere

View user profile http://us3.herozerogame.com/?resource_request=23219_2_1

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Errata Suggestion/Discussion Thread (changes you'd like to see made)

Post  ZamuelNow on Fri Jun 13, 2014 6:00 pm

I think making it an attack is more needed than flat raising the damage. As a -1 minor, it shouldn't do a ton of damage on it's own, especially when noted that there is a flat 2 damage minor.
avatar
ZamuelNow
Freakin' Alicorn Princess

Gender : Male
Posts : 3284
Join date : 2013-03-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Errata Suggestion/Discussion Thread (changes you'd like to see made)

Post  Xel Unknown on Fri Jun 13, 2014 6:20 pm

Personally I like catraps to be still mechanically working as a type of either reaction/innturpt type of mechanics build to trigger for a future attack (or attacks) X.... Or something like that.
avatar
Xel Unknown
Freakin' Alicorn Princess

Gender : Male
Posts : 7018
Join date : 2012-08-30
Age : 27
Location : Somewhere, nowhere

View user profile http://us3.herozerogame.com/?resource_request=23219_2_1

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Errata Suggestion/Discussion Thread (changes you'd like to see made)

Post  Philadelphus on Mon Jun 16, 2014 3:43 am

Well, let me weigh in on the Caltrops discussion here. I'm not sure that it makes much sense to make it an Attack rather than a Utility, due to not being a direct attack. Making it an attack would make it affected by things like Blindness and Weakened, which doesn't make much sense. That said, what are the issues people have brought up?

  1. Resist on an enemy drastically reduces the usefulness of the deterrent.
  2. The move can't be used to protect allies, nor to target specific enemies.

The suggestion to use life-loss instead of damage works to make it more useful against Resist, and I think we can extend it to allies pretty easily:

[-1] Caltrops - Minor Utility
Choose one:
a) Until the end of your next turn, any creature that attacks you or target ally loses 1d6 life
b) Until the end of your next turn, any time target enemy makes an attack it loses 1d6 life.

This should make it a bit more useful by piercing Resistance and being useful for protecting allies, while not dealing too much damage for a [-1] minor. It could also be useful on enemies that attack multiple times per turn. Thoughts?

_________________
Links to all the official sourcebooks in one place.
Optional Talent Specialization for your characters.
avatar
Philadelphus
Designer
Designer

Gender : Male
Posts : 734
Join date : 2012-07-18
Age : 28
Location : Hilo, Hawai‘i

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Errata Suggestion/Discussion Thread (changes you'd like to see made)

Post  ZamuelNow on Mon Jun 16, 2014 9:26 am

Sounds fair.
avatar
ZamuelNow
Freakin' Alicorn Princess

Gender : Male
Posts : 3284
Join date : 2013-03-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Errata Suggestion/Discussion Thread (changes you'd like to see made)

Post  Paper Shadow on Mon Jun 16, 2014 12:27 pm

Philadelphus wrote:a) Until the end of your next turn, any creature that attacks you or target ally loses 1d6 life
Just so I know your intention, is it "any creature that attacks you or target ally" or "any creature that attacks (please select either you or target ally)"? The current wording is slightly ambiguous...

_________________
Ellipses are kinda my thing...

Based Emotion Chart:
avatar
Paper Shadow
Smile Like You Mean It
Smile Like You Mean It

Posts : 3696
Join date : 2012-11-23
Age : 23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Errata Suggestion/Discussion Thread (changes you'd like to see made)

Post  Xel Unknown on Mon Jun 16, 2014 4:18 pm

I believe the used wording for things that only are usable on either yourself or allies is "you or target ally" so it means to pick one. It has been used about 6 other times in the combat system... I'd guess mabye adding clarifier "a" into the pharse could make it clearer like "you or a target ally" is clearly only useable for only ONE player at a time.
avatar
Xel Unknown
Freakin' Alicorn Princess

Gender : Male
Posts : 7018
Join date : 2012-08-30
Age : 27
Location : Somewhere, nowhere

View user profile http://us3.herozerogame.com/?resource_request=23219_2_1

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Errata Suggestion/Discussion Thread (changes you'd like to see made)

Post  Philadelphus on Tue Jun 17, 2014 2:41 pm

Paper Shadow wrote:
Philadelphus wrote:a) Until the end of your next turn, any creature that attacks you or target ally loses 1d6 life
Just so I know your intention, is it "any creature that attacks you or target ally" or "any creature that attacks (please select either you or target ally)"? The current wording is slightly ambiguous...
The intention is the second one, so I'm interested in making the wording less ambiguous. "Any creature that attacks you or a target ally" could work, as per Xel's suggestion.

_________________
Links to all the official sourcebooks in one place.
Optional Talent Specialization for your characters.
avatar
Philadelphus
Designer
Designer

Gender : Male
Posts : 734
Join date : 2012-07-18
Age : 28
Location : Hilo, Hawai‘i

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Errata Suggestion/Discussion Thread (changes you'd like to see made)

Post  Xel Unknown on Tue Jun 17, 2014 6:27 pm

If you change it here in this update... I highly suggest you change it every other places that is using the "you or target ally" wording. Cause it has been used about six other times in the combat talents doc itself.
avatar
Xel Unknown
Freakin' Alicorn Princess

Gender : Male
Posts : 7018
Join date : 2012-08-30
Age : 27
Location : Somewhere, nowhere

View user profile http://us3.herozerogame.com/?resource_request=23219_2_1

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Errata Suggestion/Discussion Thread (changes you'd like to see made)

Post  ZamuelNow on Tue Jun 17, 2014 7:24 pm

For the combat item Cannon, requesting a name change for it's granted combat talent Bitches Love Cannons.  In some ways it's nitpicky and of lower priority than the actual balance changes but I've always felt it to be in poor taste and wondered how in the world it made it into the documents in the first place.  Now, I'm all for individual campaigns doing what they want.  What I allow my players to do is different from what I do after all.  And it's great that the system promotes reflavoring things.  But in the interest in system neutrality, I'd argue against that as a default name.  Been annoyed by it for a while and was continually trying to ignore it but felt it should at least be commented on.  Though I don't have an immediate replacement suggestion for a new name.
avatar
ZamuelNow
Freakin' Alicorn Princess

Gender : Male
Posts : 3284
Join date : 2013-03-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Errata Suggestion/Discussion Thread (changes you'd like to see made)

Post  A1C Bronymous on Tue Jun 17, 2014 7:36 pm

Showed that Filly my Cannon. Fillies Love Cannons.

Only real alternative.
avatar
A1C Bronymous
Air Commander, Equestrian Armies Pegasus Corps, Eastern Skies Command
Air Commander, Equestrian Armies Pegasus Corps, Eastern Skies Command

Gender : Male
Posts : 5698
Join date : 2012-07-18
Age : 26
Location : Columbus, MS

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Errata Suggestion/Discussion Thread (changes you'd like to see made)

Post  Philadelphus on Wed Jun 18, 2014 2:25 am

Xel Unknown wrote:If you change it here in this update... I highly suggest you change it every other places that is using the "you or target ally" wording. Cause it has been used about six other times in the combat talents doc itself.
Hmm, yeah. It's annoying that English doesn't have a simple way to express "exclusive or". Given that it shows up a lot it might be more useful to have a little note at the top of the document explaining what it means.

ZamuelNow wrote:For the combat item Cannon, requesting a name change for it's granted combat talent Bitches Love Cannons.
Given that it involves "blasting target creature out of combat," perhaps a good neutral name could simply be "Cannonball!"?

_________________
Links to all the official sourcebooks in one place.
Optional Talent Specialization for your characters.
avatar
Philadelphus
Designer
Designer

Gender : Male
Posts : 734
Join date : 2012-07-18
Age : 28
Location : Hilo, Hawai‘i

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Errata Suggestion/Discussion Thread (changes you'd like to see made)

Post  Paper Shadow on Wed Jun 18, 2014 2:30 am

Philadelphus wrote:
Xel Unknown wrote:If you change it here in this update... I highly suggest you change it every other places that is using the "you or target ally" wording. Cause it has been used about six other times in the combat talents doc itself.
Hmm, yeah. It's annoying that English doesn't have a simple way to express "exclusive or". Given that it shows up a lot it might be more useful to have a little note at the top of the document explaining what it means.
It might be worth using the term "target creature" in those occasions instead. Saves you from the frustrations of ambiguous wording, although you'd have to double check over what each instance does...

_________________
Ellipses are kinda my thing...

Based Emotion Chart:
avatar
Paper Shadow
Smile Like You Mean It
Smile Like You Mean It

Posts : 3696
Join date : 2012-11-23
Age : 23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Errata Suggestion/Discussion Thread (changes you'd like to see made)

Post  Xel Unknown on Wed Jun 18, 2014 12:48 pm

I don't like the idea of using "Target creature" in cases like this... Cause it means that well... If somebody get's Dominated it can used by the enemy for evil means... And it also raises the question of "why use the target enemy" terminology too in my opinion? Cause if we're not going to have a phrase that clearly is for "everyone on your side of the battle" type of trem why use a term for "everyone that isn't on your side of the battle" type of thing? And I feel each of these terms have their place in the combat system...

Edit: Maybe we just add an phrase term in the listing of terms for "you or target ally" to help try to keep it clear what that means? Then again, turning the "target ally"  into "a target ally" I think removes all the avidity. Or maybe we turn it into "target party member" and give a phrasing def that it counts for all allies and yourself in terms of targetable targets for the talent? Then again... Equally unsure if the new phrase is needed to be added. And kinda disliking the idea of "target party member" the more I think about it. But it could work if a better term is used that could easily be used as a placeholder to count for allies + yourself. Cause at this point we just know that "ally" only counts for everyone other than yourself and it's change in def isn't a wise move to make we'll all agree there.
avatar
Xel Unknown
Freakin' Alicorn Princess

Gender : Male
Posts : 7018
Join date : 2012-08-30
Age : 27
Location : Somewhere, nowhere

View user profile http://us3.herozerogame.com/?resource_request=23219_2_1

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Errata Suggestion/Discussion Thread (changes you'd like to see made)

Post  A1C Bronymous on Wed Jun 18, 2014 1:43 pm

"You or target ally" could be differentiated from "You and all(or target) allies". If you change it to Party members that eliminates friendly npcs from receiving the benefits.
avatar
A1C Bronymous
Air Commander, Equestrian Armies Pegasus Corps, Eastern Skies Command
Air Commander, Equestrian Armies Pegasus Corps, Eastern Skies Command

Gender : Male
Posts : 5698
Join date : 2012-07-18
Age : 26
Location : Columbus, MS

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Errata Suggestion/Discussion Thread (changes you'd like to see made)

Post  Xel Unknown on Wed Jun 18, 2014 6:54 pm

Yeah... That's why I didn't like the term "party members" myself while I did bring it up. Cause I couldn't think of another one to state. And only bringing it up just but it on the table as an option. Still thinking the change to "You or a target ally". Is the best change to do for the phrasing.
avatar
Xel Unknown
Freakin' Alicorn Princess

Gender : Male
Posts : 7018
Join date : 2012-08-30
Age : 27
Location : Somewhere, nowhere

View user profile http://us3.herozerogame.com/?resource_request=23219_2_1

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Errata Suggestion/Discussion Thread (changes you'd like to see made)

Post  Xel Unknown on Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:04 pm

Might I suggest that Martyr’s Blessing also work for loss of life as well as damage... Cause I don't see why it shouldn't work for that type of effect too.
avatar
Xel Unknown
Freakin' Alicorn Princess

Gender : Male
Posts : 7018
Join date : 2012-08-30
Age : 27
Location : Somewhere, nowhere

View user profile http://us3.herozerogame.com/?resource_request=23219_2_1

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Errata Suggestion/Discussion Thread (changes you'd like to see made)

Post  ZamuelNow on Thu Jun 19, 2014 9:13 pm

Philadelphus wrote:
ZamuelNow wrote:For the combat item Cannon, requesting a name change for it's granted combat talent Bitches Love Cannons.
Given that it involves "blasting target creature out of combat," perhaps a good neutral name could simply be "Cannonball!"?

Makes sense.

As far as terminology, I haven't thought of "you or target ally" as sounding odd. That said, my opinion may be skewed since I sometimes pick up such terminology easily.

Xel Unknown wrote:Might I suggest that Martyr’s Blessing also work for loss of life as well as damage... Cause I don't see why it shouldn't work for that type of effect too.

I wonder if that might require a wording change across the board since multiple tanking moves have such wording.
avatar
ZamuelNow
Freakin' Alicorn Princess

Gender : Male
Posts : 3284
Join date : 2013-03-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Errata Suggestion/Discussion Thread (changes you'd like to see made)

Post  Xel Unknown on Fri Jun 20, 2014 4:32 am

ZamuelNow wrote:As far as terminology, I haven't thought of "you or target ally" as sounding odd.  That said, my opinion may be skewed since I sometimes pick up such terminology easily.
I equally agree... Just the newer possible update to caltraps' seemed to spark such a topic. Which I still think just adding an "a" into the wording fixes everything. That is, if anything needs fixing in this case.

ZamuelNow wrote:
Xel Unknown wrote:Might I suggest that Martyr’s Blessing also work for loss of life as well as damage... Cause I don't see why it shouldn't work for that type of effect too.

I wonder if that might require a wording change across the board since multiple tanking moves have such wording.
Don't think all of the tanking moves need such changes. Worry the Halving Damage moves might become a bit too strong if they all change to include loss of life. But I wont resist such a change if more people think it's needed... Just figure that Marty's Blessing of all of them really seems like it should work for everything... Maybe others could use a change too. But I'm unsure off the top of my head if they ALL need to change.
avatar
Xel Unknown
Freakin' Alicorn Princess

Gender : Male
Posts : 7018
Join date : 2012-08-30
Age : 27
Location : Somewhere, nowhere

View user profile http://us3.herozerogame.com/?resource_request=23219_2_1

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Errata Suggestion/Discussion Thread (changes you'd like to see made)

Post  Xel Unknown on Sat Jun 21, 2014 3:11 pm

Going over the listing of combat talents (well the skype doc at least) for talents that deal with damage only but strike me as could also affect loss of life scenarios too. I've also added my commentary on whether or not we should change them to include loss of life effects.

all combat talents (that I noticed) that deal with damage only, yet could also be improved by loss of life triggering as well:
[-2] Vengeance is Mine – Reaction Attack
Trigger – An enemy deals damage to you
Effect - Deal an equal amount of damage to the triggering enemy

((I'd figure having a move that is a pure reaction that can't trigger on loss of life is kinda dumb for the system, it's already a Reaction which means it can only trigger if you aren't KOed by the attack itself... Would suggest it can be used to deal reaction loss of life too... Like with maybe adding a new term of Attack Power? or something... To mean that if loss of life this attack deals loss of life, and if damage is taken, it's damage the attack does. Just my two bits on how the talent should work.))

[-4] Misdirection – Interrupt Attack
Trigger – An enemy damages you with a combat talent.
Effect - A random enemy takes the damage instead.

((Highly debatable if Misdirection should change... But but here as being for completeness of talents that are only dealing with damage that was built before loss of life was a thing. Personally think Misdirection could stay as it is.))

[+1] Guarded Stance - Standard Utility
Until the end of your next turn, you take half damage.

((Another talent that could be argued to not change. But not to the same degree as Misdirection... Though that might just be because I had played a fight where I had this talent and EVERYTHING was dealing only loss of life attacks.... +1's are talents that their pip gain isn't the focus but a minor extra bonus, from what I've seen. So their effects should be worthwhile in and of themself. But as I said, nothing is wrong about this one staying the same.))

[-2] Punishing Blow - Reaction Attack
Trigger – An enemy damages one of your allies with an attack.
Effect – Deal 1d12 damage to the triggering enemy.

((The wording on Punishing Blow means that loss of life attacks, CAN'T trigger it. Which I feel is something wrong... I mean Slashback doesn't fall into this by just using the the "attack" wording alone. Maybe a change in wording from "damages" to "harms" could help it be clearer to effect off loss of life attacks too.))

[-2] Roar of Challenge - Minor Utility
Target creature and all creatures adjacent to it are subjected to your “Roar of Challenge” until the end of your next turn. A creature subjected to your, “Roar of Challenge” deals half damage on attacks that do not include you as a target.

((All the unsure about this Roar of Challenge. It might be fine staying as it is now. But maybe it should effect loss of life too... It's a hard call either way in my opinion))

[-2] Martyr’s Blessing - Minor Utility
Until the end of your next turn, whenever a creature would deal damage to target ally the damage is dealt to you instead.

((STRONGLY URGE Martyr's Blessing to be changed to effect changed to deal with loss of life too... Maybe adding an "harm" term to inculde both loss of life and damage would fix everything with this talent.))

[-2] Guardian’s Shield - Interrupt Utility
Trigger - You would take damage from an attack
Effect - You take half that damage instead.

((I don't think this talent needs any change... It's perfectly fine as it is.))

[-5] Guardian Angel - Standard Utility
For the rest of the battle or until you fall unconscious, enemies deal half damage to target ally.

((This one is debatable... But much like Martyr's Blessing it could use such a buff to make it more appealing to even see it used in combat more.))

Shield of Valor's Talent:
[+2] Stand Tall - Standard Utility
You take half damage until the end of your next turn, and target ally is subjected to your “Guardian’s Oath” until the end of your next turn.

((Much like what I said about Guarded Stance... Goes here too, but if Guarded Stand needs to change, this one might be worth not changing because of how it also gives you basically a free yet "dazable" martyr's blessing effect with how that Guardian's Oath mechanic works.))

[-2] Support Me! - Reaction Utility
Trigger - An enemy damages you with an attack that targets you only.
Effect - Target ally may immediately use the following combat talent against the triggering enemy.

[0] No One Hits The Commander But Me - Free Attack
Deal 1d10 damage to target creature. The creature that granted this attack gains hp equal to the damage dealt.

((Another move that might be worth the idea of this "harm" wording I'm suggesting in this post. Because again it only deals with damage... Loss of Life can't trigger this. But hard to tell either way if this is really needing of a change.))

[-3] Shield Up! - Interrupt Utility
Trigger - Target ally would take damage.
Effect - That ally takes only half that damage instead.

((Much like the Guardian's Shield... I'm not of the opinion this needs any change. I'll not resist any change if others feel they need it. But I just don't think so.))

[0] Adrenaline Rush - Immediate Reaction
Trigger - An enemy deals X or more damage to you with an attack, where X equals 1/5th of your starting health.
Effect - Flip a coin. If heads, you gain an energy.

((Err... This talent might do well with a full rewrite to being less wordy really... Also it's one of the few talents that still are using the odd Immediate Reaction wording... And not Reaction Utility wording. But still it can't trigger on loss of life and I can't see why that should be. It's been a really overlooked talent... Because it does so little, easy to forget about, and needs maths to figure out if it even triggers. Might be worthwhile to give a helpful table for what 1/5 of their starting health is. Like the following: (starting at 40 because of the trait Though which gives +10 to max HP and need to be factored into this maths)

40 = 8
35 = 7
30 = 6
25 = 5
20 = 4
15 = 3
10 = 2
5 = 1

Just a helpful suggestion...))

[-3] Against The Odds - Immediate Reaction
Trigger - An enemy deals damage to you after another enemy has already dealt damage to you this round.
Effect - Deal 1d12 damage to each enemy that has damaged you this round. You gain 1d10 temporary hp.

((Another talent using the outdated wording of "Immediate Reaction" in place of "Reaction Attack or Utility"... And this move is another that has a lot of thought needed to be used to when to use it... I mean it goes into a thought of either waiting till the second person hits you to damage two... Or do you try to wait and survive more hits to get more in one blow? Then again, that equally get's less payoff because of how the only bonus to waiting is at best dealing more d12s (if you are taking the wording to mean you indinval rolls)... And if you aren't... It's only giving one d12 roll that hits more people the more enemies that had hit you. Then again you can keep triggering multiple times a round... If you somehow got the pips and can survive the damage. That should be kept... Even thought that totally Loss of Life should also be able to trigger it.))

[-1] Preserve the Bodies - Interrupt Utility [Created by Silent Belle]
Trigger - An ally with 0 or fewer HP would take damage from an attack
Effect - Grant the triggering ally 1d10 temporary hp.

((This move is hard to tell either way... My first impression is no this move needs no change... But maybe it could use a change to trigger off loss of life? It's a useless move if all the enemies do loss of life and even if it can trigger off loss of life, it's still pointless to have it used.))

Also hoping highly to see that change to caltraps being finalized asap... Mostly just cause it seems awesome and love it when I'm ever playing official moves.
avatar
Xel Unknown
Freakin' Alicorn Princess

Gender : Male
Posts : 7018
Join date : 2012-08-30
Age : 27
Location : Somewhere, nowhere

View user profile http://us3.herozerogame.com/?resource_request=23219_2_1

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Errata Suggestion/Discussion Thread (changes you'd like to see made)

Post  Philadelphus on Tue Jun 24, 2014 2:28 am

When you come right down to it, literally every combat talent that does damage would be better if it dealt with life loss, because then Resist would be pointless. Looking over your list, Xel, I don't see anything that really looks like it needs a change. Caltrops was kind of a special case because it only did 1d4 damage, while most moves do at least 1d6 or 1d8 (at which points you also have special move triggering to take into account), so a little life loss kept it from being completely useless due to 2 or 3 Resist (and it nicely fits the name for an armor-piercing attack). If a GM is regularly tossing out 6 or 8 Resist monsters, that's a problem with their monster design, not one that we can (or should) "fix" by changing other things.

Similarly, loss of life on a monster attack is something that should be used sparingly, not on every monster attack. It's supposed to be something special that bypasses resistance and moves that normally guard against damage. So it should really only show up on monsters very rarely, for that "oh shoot our usual tactics won't work here" kind of feeling, and I don't think it's worth modifying a whole bunch of talents based on that.

Quoting from PM as requested:
Xel Unknown wrote:((PMing this to you because I don't feel like putting a third post in the Suggestions topic... I request if you could quote this PM and post in the Suggestions topic yourself that would be swell.))

I've always loved that Soldier's Vest and Soldier's Armor had become a thing... But one major problem with them the more I look at them. They don't seem that much of an option to even take as I they always should be. I've thought one minor change that might work to help make them at least look like an option to take even if you already have resist from another source... While this might not been the wisest of ideas I'l admit... But because this is an extra 1 or 2 resist that is ONLY in effect if you got Temp-HP seems like a perfectly balanced in my opinion. I mean if you got resist from like any source that gives it, 500 gold left over, and just wanted to take the Who's The Tank trait this level up. You are wasting your gold taking the dam Soldier's Armor... And having something that cheap seem like only an option to those that build around getting temp and if you already get 2 or more resist from any source (really easy to do thanks to the fact we have a 3 resist trait) you've not go reason to take either version of the armor. And 500 Gold items should ALWAYS be an option to take if you got the gold needed to take it. I propose the following edits:

edits that need no new terms added I think:
Soldier’s Vest - 500 Gold [Created by Xel Unknown and Ramsus]
Armor
You have resist +1 while you have temporary hp. This resistance is added to the value of any resist you already if have some from another source. If you have no resistance at all it counts as resist 1.

Soldier’s Armor - 1500 Gold [Created by Xel Unknown and Ramsus]
Armor
You have resist +2 while you have temporary hp. This resistance is added to the value of any resist you already if have some from another source. If you have no resistance at all it counts as resist 2.

Another option is that this could become like whole new term of Bonus Resist like Temp-Armor or some better term where that it gives you an extra resistance that triggers before temp but after vul or just adds like an extra stack onto resistance... Which would be a neat thing to add to the system. (and an idea to give Wanderlust's combat system) But the Temp-Armor that acts as a type of Temporary Bonus Resistance only it MUST have a "lose" condition built in to be Temp-Armor. Here's what I'd use if the armor were to use such a new term:

Temp-Armor Edits, Temp-Armor's meaning, & new trait suggestions:
Temp-Armor = Temp-Armor acts as a type of Bonus Temporary Resistance that ALWAYS has some type of "lose" condition meaning it is possible to be lost mid-battle. If you have 2 Resistance and 4 Temp-Armor (lost while bloodied) you'd effectively have 6 resistance until the lose condition of the Temp-Armor in triggers (in this case being blooded). Temp-Armor doesn't need any Resistance to act as Resistance itself. Temp-Armor is allowed to stack and get higher unlike how Resistance works, unless stated otherwise. But each amount of Temp-Armor will still still only be lost whenever it's Lose Condition is triggered. And depending on what that is it might be able to "regain" your Temp-Armor in ways that might not seem like it should give you temp-armor at first glance. Such as both the Solider's Vest & Soldier's Armor which gives Temp-Armor as long as you have any type of Resistance. Losing the temp-HP does remove the Temp-Armor, but regaining ANY temp-HP after losing all temp-HP will return the Temp-Armor as well.

Soldier’s Vest - 500 Gold [Created by Xel Unknown and Ramsus]
Armor
You have temp-armor 1 while you have temporary hp.

Soldier’s Armor - 1500 Gold [Created by Xel Unknown and Ramsus]
Armor
You have temp-armor 2 while you have temporary hp.

NEW TRAIT SUGGESTION:

Magical Wards
You have Temp-Armor 4, unless you are bloodied then it is lost until you are no longer bloodied. This Temp-Armor DOES NOT STACK with other temp-armors or resistance of any type. If your resist is greater than or equal to 4 this is basically doing nothing. But if it's less than 4, then your total resistance is 4 while not bloodied.

(A tad complex I'll give it that... But I felt it needed such effects cause it's meant to be 4 resist that is lost while blooded and doesn't stack with resist. Yet still is working... Maybe some of that info is more useful in a doc-tag. But this was what I wanted to build if I was building the traits... Being complex is just a factor of how I build.)

Strong Will To Live!
You gain resistance 1. When you are bloodied you gain Temp-Armor 2 and when you are KOed that Temp-Armor value doubles to 4. This Temp-Armor does not work if you have more than 2 resist or if your total resistance (Your Resist + Temp-Armor value) hits more than 6 at any time. If either of these lose conditions are met, the Temp-Armor this trait grants is lost until the start of the next battle.

(Unsure of the wording here and might be too complex to add... But the basic idea is a trait that starts off with you having 1 resist at full, getting 3 when bloodied, and resist 5 when KOed and those values can only at best be upped by only one. Also to show off what Temp-Armor can be used to do. Making this trait made me realise that it SHOULD work with "Ward for the Fallen" after I typed that it couldn't... Cause that talent has never been used from what I can recall. But about the trait it's complexities can be totally removed if you think they don't need them. Just thinking an option that gives low resist that only gets stronger at lower HP levels is a neat ideas.)

Also the following talents could use a change to giving temp-armor, assuming you wish to make this new term a thing: (changes are underlined, (with the original status in [] next to it) the commentary was made before I ironed out the Temp-Armor idea. So it might not make total sense)

Combat Talent Edits:
((You might notice that Faith Ward isn't on this list. That's because I feel it's fine staying under resistance rules. And might be OP if given the Temp-Armor Rules. Any other resist granting talents were just either forgotten or I might've thought the same of them... But likely just forgot them anyway even if I did.))

Granite Axe's trait & talent:
Stone Skin - Trait
You have Temp-Armor 1 as long as you have the Granite Axe active. (reminder that Granite Axe is lost when KOed)

[+3] Earth’s Embrace – Standard Attack
Target creature takes 3 damage and you gain 2 more temp-armor [resist 2] until the end of your next turn.

(Not needing a major change in my opinion. But it could totally be worth thinking about it giving something. Cause if you do have 2 or more resistance, this move only is +3 standard dealing 3 damage... I'd suggest maybe it could mechanically work like giving a +1 resist if you already have more than 2 resist already? Then again... Maybe it gives 3 resist by default thanks to the +1 resistance the weapons' trait has.. If that is true, then it'd need to give a +2 resistance. And maybe a note given about how it's effect works. As it's worded it does allow 3 resistance minimum as the natural effect.)

[+2] Defensive Fighting - Standard Attack
Deal 2 damage to target creature and gain temp-armor 2 [resist 2] until the end of your next turn.

(Not sure if this needs any change... But like with Earth's Embrace it might be worthwhile to give some type of +1 or +2 resistance if you aready got 2 resistance. I mean it becomes a worthless move if you have any. But then again that might be the point of the move itself.)

[-4] Ward for the Fallen - Minor Utility [Created by Silent Belle]
Until the end of the encounter, all allies gain Temp-Armor 4 [resist 3] while they are unconscious or comatose. This Temp-Armor ALWAYS stacks and can never trigger a loss of any other Temp-Armor

(Added way later: Realized this move existed and could use the Temp-Armor treatment too when I was thinking up new traits to suggest... The second qualifier is put in cause it should be a logical rule to this talent and hey, it'll make this seem like it can be a useable talent even if that "Strong Will to Live!" Trait is used by an ally. Cause if anyone has resist three already this move isn't helping them... And hey I've not seen used AT ALL in support builds. That alone makes me wish to give it more power. It has a 4 instead of 3 because of the same reason: To make it more appealing to be used. Still might not use it... But is at least seems like an option now.)

Form of the Tree's trait:
Strength of Wood - Trait
You have Temp-Armor 2 as long as you are in the Form of the Tree [resist 2]

(Err... I'm unsure if this should be here or not... But it's worth talking about here too. Because this talent's trait becomes uselsess if you have 2 or more resistance by itself... It might worrent getting a +2 effect, maybe... I'd be a hard call in my opinion.)

[-2] Barkskin - Minor Utility
You gain temp-armor 2 [resist 2] until the end of your next turn and 1d10 temporary hit points. This temp-armor does not stack if barkskin is used twice.

(This move is totally fine by itself. But like my Soldier Vest/Soldier Armor this talent could use a minor secondary effect to keep it fully useful for when you get resist 2 or higher from another source. I'd suggest having it give a +1 or +2 resistance. Because this is a minor action it slightly more warrants a change more than Defensive Fighting does in my opinion.)

Also would suggest that the term of Piercing Damage be given. A type of damage that bypasses both Resist and Temp-Armor/Temp-Resist but doesn't avoid either Vulnerability nor Temp-HP... Would suggest that the following attacks deal Piercing Damage (this change would help improve each of the attacks seem more worthwhile to take.):

Piercing Damage edits & def:
(again note most of the commentary was made before I hammered out the idea of Piercing Damage and left here as it was because I iz lazzy) New Moves are in black text to make it clear those are fully new suggestions most likely based on the talent that is made before it and the commentary is always backed on mostly the normal move. Unless I added more details to talk about the new move suggestion.

Piercing Damage - A special type of Damage that functions very much the same as damage. (IE: anything that boosts/penalizes damage will do the same to Piercing Damage, Weakening will cut it in half. +x damage will still do +X to it.) Only difference is that Piercing Damage treats all Resistance and Temp-Armor as if it was effectively 0, unless it triggers something that forces the piercing damage need to go through Resistance and/or Temp-Armor. This means it does not trigger either of those but it does trigger Vulnerability getting boosted by it must get past temp-HP to affect one's HP. And piercing damage may also trigger any and all talents that are triggered by normal damage. But if anything is to be triggered by piercing damage it is NOT triggered by normal damage.

*Optional new term* Lose All Resistance - Some talents talk about losing resistance and as it implies while this effect is in play any resistance you own is treated as if it was 0 until whatever is causing that effect is removed or ends.

[+3] Taunting Strike - Standard Attack
Deal 1d4 damage to target creature. You suffer vulnerability 3 to that creature’s attacks until the end of your next turn.

[+3] Risky Kick - Standard Attack
Deal 1d6 piercing damage to target enemy. Both you and the target enemy lose all resistance and you both suffer Vulnerability X till the end of your next turn, where X equals 7 subtracted by the d6's roll.


(ADDED AFTER THE PIERCING DAMAGE TERM DEF MADE: Well this move is the only one that I realized could use a Piercing Damage version of the talent... While the idea of Taunting Strike having two options like Knife in the Dark is temping to suggest. I think it's wiser for me to just suggest a fully new talent inspired by the talent in question. Also I've always been wanting to see a +3 d6 move for a long while. Hell it might even be worth enough to cost +4 thanks to it's risk to it's user. But then again the same risk is given to it's target creature... Mmm... In fact I'm going to instead use a target enemy phrasing instead to make it a move that CAN'T be used if Dominated. That'd be too much of a risk to allow to happen... And we could use more "target enemy" moves in my opinion. But then again still might cost enough to be worth a +4 move... Also we do have a move that does improve when you roll low, "Staggering Note" that's where I got the idea of the 7-1d6 vul thing. So that's not really anything new if that's what you worry about... And I do suggest that again for Shatter Armor to do the same thing. It's a really neat mechanic in my opinion and the system could use more moves that do that.)

[+1] Knife in the Dark - Standard Attack
Choose One:
A) Deal 6 damage to one target creature
B) Deal 4 damage to two target creatures.
C) Deal a Halved Piercing Damage version of option A or B
[*]((Note to add in doc: This means that you get 4 options to use: 6 damage to one target, 4 damage to 2 targets, 3 piercing damage to one target, or 2 piercing damage to 2 targets))

OR add a new talent (can be edited to be however you feel is balanced):

[+1] Kunai Knife Throw
Choose One:
A) Deal 3 piercing damage to one target creature
B) Deal 2 piercing damage to two target creatures


(Well, this one might not need to deal Piercing Damage itself... It might be while while to have an effect if you end up using the attack on an enemy that has resist to tank the flat damage outright. I'd have it give a 2d4-4 extra pip gain... But that's just my opinion. Might be wiser to have it be like a coin flip pip bonus. Like one or two coin flips getting if you call it you gain a pip. Or having heads or tails be pip gain would be helpful. Another option is that it can deal 3 piercing damage if it if it's single target version is fully tanked and like 2 piercing damage if it's 4 damage get's tanked... Or you could add an option 3 where it it can deal a piercing damage version of A or B at half damage or an attack penalty... That could be neat.  Just don't like it when flat-damage moves can't deal any damage just because it happens to be an enemy that has high enough resist to make it useless.

Added later: Well the idea of having it be a new move might be a smart idea. And might even be worth making it stronger if you want... Also would seem easier than adding a third option to Knife in the Dark. Also NINJA FLAVOR!)

[+1] Armor Pierce - Standard Attack
Deal 1d6 piercing damage to target creature, also [and] that creature loses all resistance and suffers vulnerability 1 (save ends both).

-OR-
[+1] Armor Pierce - Standard Attack
Deal 1d6 piercing damage to target creature, and that creature suffers vulnerability 1 (save ends).

[+1] Armor Corroding Acid - Standard Utility
Roll 1d6. Target creature suffers X vulnerability (save ends), where X equals 6 subtracted the d6 roll. and Losses all Resistance (save ends). Then flip a coin, if you win the flip you may deal damage equal to the d6 roll, and if that d6 roll was odd the damage you deal is doubled.

[*]((Note to add to the Doc: Sadly even though the phrasing seems to mean the possible damage would happen after the resistance removal and vul... It doesn't... So the possible damage doesn't get boosted by the vul. And like headshot the double damage only applies to the default d6 roll.))

(This talent always strikes me as not really fulfilling it's default flavor name of being any type of real "pierce" at all in my opinion. Cause Vulnerability 1 isn't that great if the thing already has like 4+ resist to begin with, and if this idea of mine Temp-Armor becomes a thing, that'd even weaken this all the more... Would suggest this either gives like a unique Stackable Vul Save-Ends effect or can even bypass the resist itself by it's attack being Piercing Damage would be worthwhile and needed buffs to the move. Also adding to it's save ends effect to reduce or remove resistance would be a neat add on

Added later: Ok, trying to add something to the system with the whole "if the roll is odd you'll deal double damage" thing. But the only options are doubling the outcomes of 1, 3, & 5 to 2, 6, & 10... Meaning the ide outcomes are 2, 2, 6, 4, 10, 6 (going by die possibility and doubling the odd outcomes) so I don't think it's that strong and even then you gotta get a coin flip win to get it. Then again if you feel like it the coin flip is needed and wanted turn it into an attack I'll understand that. Just felt it'd be neat to be a utility... Maybe instead have it deal with ongoing damage instead of damage as it's own save ends? It'll likely not be a +1 at that point, but still a neat idea in my opinion to have one move that deals with "lose all resistance" as it's own save ends (assuming that the Form of the Panther's isn't one already such a thing) so yeah...)

[+1] Piercing Shot - Standard Attack
Deal 1d8 piercing damage to target creature. This attack ignores resistance.

(I'll admit that this move already basically deals Piercing Damage already, but if Temp-Armor/Temp-Resist become a real thing, this move gets nerfed a little. Therefore giving it Piercing Damage would be needed to help avoid any nerf to this simple move

Added later: This commentary was added when I was thinking of suggesting a dumb idea of like the "temp-armor" being an "extra resist" placed after the vul, not before... The more I thought about that idea, I slowly came to realize that'd just be a bit too complex for this system to really handle. Insead I think having Temp-Armor work as a "stackable bonus resistance that can be lost somehow" is a smarter and simpler way for it to work... And hell the "stackable" side of things can be removed if you don't like that idea. Personally I think it's warranted given that "stackable bonus resistance" is ALREADY a thing in the system... It's what both the "Who's the Tank" trait and "Granite Axe" talent do. Though I do think that "Who's the Tank" works better as is... Cause I'd want "Temp-Armor" to have the temp part of it's name make sense to wrap one's head around it being something that can be lost.)

[-3] ((normally a -2)) Volley - Standard Attack
Roll a d8. Deal 4 piercing damage to up to X different creatures, where X is the die result. You may not hit any creature more than three times, if you roll higher then there are total possible targets.

(Volley has always seemed to be a really meh talent to me... It's only charm is that it is the random variable AoE attack, which isn't really all that charming by itself... That is neat, but really meh and can't help at all if anything or everything has resist 4 or more... Therefore having it's low 4 damage be turned into a special damage that bypasses resist, would GREATLY help this move be always useful. Could also be changed to loss of life... But that might be an unwarranted change in my opinion. Either way being flat damage isn't great for this talent.

Added later: Turning this move into Piercing damage will also make it always feel like a useful move. Cause I think and feel it's looked over because of it being a random variable AoE... Also thinking the removal of the "different" term and allowing it to hit the same enemy more than once (personally suggest a limit of three to a target). But all of these changes might make it worthy to make it cost more. Rarely have I EVER seen there 8 enemies at once. So allowing a little of "same target" to be hit by piercing damage whenever you roll higher than all the targets you can hit would make it useful even if you facing less than 8 enemies. And allows it to feel even stronger when you get to lower and lower numbers. Something no other AoE would be able to do. I think the most likely mult-enemy battles have had 4 targets.)

[-7] Shatter Armor - Standard Attack
Deal 1d10 piercing damage to target creature. Also [and] that creature loses all resistance and suffers X vulnerability until the end of your next turn, where X equals 11 subtracted by the d10 result. [suffers that much vulnerability until the end of your next turn.]

(Well... This is the only move on this list that doesn't really need the change. But would only be included thanks to it's default flavor dealing with armor... I suggest it either deals piercing damage or it can turn the target creature's resistance to 0 as well as giving the d10 vul... Either of these changes would be a great improvement to this move. But both are not 100% needed changes I will admit.

Added Latter: Maybe also adding a variable vul outcome that doesn't equal the damage might make up for the piercing damage & "lose all resistance" buffs. I for one would be ok with such a thing. Cause I love the idea of low dicerolls still being "good" to some degree. We already got one move that already does that "Staggering Note" by the way... So I'm not adding anything new. Just adding more of what we already have)

Form of the Spitting Cobra's talent:
[+2] Spit Acid - Standard Attack
Target creature loses all resistance and suffers vulnerability 1 and ongoing damage 1 (save ends all)

(I admit that there is nothing wrong with this talent, and even if Piercing Damage becomes a thing this move need not any changes at all to still fit... Just apart of this listing as a reminder that "loss all resistance" an already an effect that's already apart of the system.

Added later: This justified the usage of adding the effect into other talents and the suggestion to adding it to the terms...)

Form of the Panther's talent:
[+1] Razor Claws - Standard Attack
Deal 1d10 piercing damage to target creature. If you roll an 8 or higher, that creature takes 3 ongoing damage and loses all resistance (save ends both). This attack ignores resistance.

(much like Piercing Shot this move doesn't really need any changes... Only needs to change to Piercing Damage if the term becomes a thing for a better use of formatting and/or if Temp-Armor becomes a thing to make sure it doesn't get nerfed assuming that Temp-Armor is used as something that triggers after vul. And to make it clear that temp-armor is also effectively 0.

Added Later: Noticed that this move kinda seems to state, by the way the phrasing of how it's written seems to mean that the target takes 3 ongoing till the end of battle... Either the Lose All Resistance and the 3 ongoing are different save ends or it needs a "save ends both" to be clear... Then again if you wanna have it be a persistent 3 ongoing, that's cool too and needs the wording needed so that's 100% clear.)
Regarding Soldier's Vest and Soldier's Armor, I don't see a problem with letting their Resistances stack, since they're quite small and only function while you have Temporary HP.

Regarding adding additional terms to the old system, I don't have nearly enough time to do that along with work on the new system, which we're hoping to release to the forums within a week or two. I can make minor changes to fix things that are blatantly broken or are mostly cosmetic, but the big open secret is that much of the old system is broken in one way or another, and it doesn't feel like a great use of my time patching holes in a leaky ship when I'm also working on building a brand new shiny ship with no holes (or at least a whole lot fewer). I know it's been a long time coming, but it's almost here, and I just don't have time to add new content to both at the moment (I'm also moving house this weekend on top of everything). Sorry.

(Also, if you want damage that bypasses Resist, there's already a move that does it [Piercing Shot] and an item that lets you do it with any attack [Really Sharp Sword].)

_________________
Links to all the official sourcebooks in one place.
Optional Talent Specialization for your characters.
avatar
Philadelphus
Designer
Designer

Gender : Male
Posts : 734
Join date : 2012-07-18
Age : 28
Location : Hilo, Hawai‘i

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Errata Suggestion/Discussion Thread (changes you'd like to see made)

Post  Xel Unknown on Tue Jun 24, 2014 2:41 am

I know that... Just felt like sending in the suggestions anyway... Cause dammit... I liked how the old system seemed to be in endless updates... And I miss that fact with how everyone gave up on the Pony Tales system the very system this forum was named after! Also most of it came out of the mind well was in a combat with full loss of life... or something... I don't know... Just the idea of trying to review the old talents and try to FIX THE DAM SYSTEM is something it feel like only I care about... And wanted to send in my ideas to cause hey you are the only one still doing something with the dang system... >.> Even if those are just minor updates at best... And slow... And GMs got bad building because... THERE IS NO GOOD MONSTER BUILDING SYSTEM OR GUIDELINES AT ALL OF HOW TO DO THEM! So yeah... *sigh* Hope if nothing else Wonderlust at least avoids that major misteap even thought they'll never try to do that for the system the forum was named after and for. Mostly was just ideas to get the ideas out there really...

Sorry... Just in a ranty mood on this topic is all. It's fine that the one thing that did get a change got the change...

Edit: Oh boy.. It is coming out soon... *sigh* ...hope I don't have the reaction of it being our own version of D&D's 4th E (what I fear Wonderlust will feel like to me [YOU BETRAY EVERYTHING]), and I'm the biggest fan of D&D 3.5 (ponytales)... And note this is from a non-D&D player so I don't really got any opinions as a whole over either of those systems... I only got an opinion on Pony Tales. So I fear... I fear everything.
avatar
Xel Unknown
Freakin' Alicorn Princess

Gender : Male
Posts : 7018
Join date : 2012-08-30
Age : 27
Location : Somewhere, nowhere

View user profile http://us3.herozerogame.com/?resource_request=23219_2_1

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Errata Suggestion/Discussion Thread (changes you'd like to see made)

Post  Xel Unknown on Wed Jun 25, 2014 11:49 pm

Combat Talents Doc wrote:[-2] Smoke Bomb - Standard Utility
Until the end of your next turn, creatures that attack you must flip a coin before it attacks. If it loses the flip, the attack does not affect you.
Could Smoke Bomb be upgraded in some way to effect the whole party? Like maybe have it spend a minor as well or costs more pips to do that.... Or have it be a Varbile type of outcomes... Where it effects you plus 1d6 allies? Or just 1d6 target creatures? Cause really... Smoke Bomb's biggest flaw is that it can only work for ONE target, yourself... And can't be used on allies at all.
avatar
Xel Unknown
Freakin' Alicorn Princess

Gender : Male
Posts : 7018
Join date : 2012-08-30
Age : 27
Location : Somewhere, nowhere

View user profile http://us3.herozerogame.com/?resource_request=23219_2_1

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Errata Suggestion/Discussion Thread (changes you'd like to see made)

Post  ZamuelNow on Thu Jun 26, 2014 2:36 am

Philadelphus wrote:When you come right down to it, literally every combat talent that does damage would be better if it dealt with life loss, because then Resist would be pointless.

I disagree.  In a perfect scenario, both are even.  Loss of life is permanently static while damage can fluctuate with things like resist and vulnerability.  This doesn't happen in actual play since there's a lot of ways to mitigate damage but the theory is there.  Some defensive talents should be revamped to take into account loss of life but I think that needs to be a separate discussion since it fluctuates a lot due to what each combat talent does.

Xel Unknown wrote:Could Smoke Bomb be upgraded in some way to effect the whole party?

That sounds crazy overpowered.  The biggest issue is that it's a Standard Utility instead of a Minor and that the nature of it as a coin flip makes it inconsistent.
avatar
ZamuelNow
Freakin' Alicorn Princess

Gender : Male
Posts : 3284
Join date : 2013-03-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Errata Suggestion/Discussion Thread (changes you'd like to see made)

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 43 of 44 Previous  1 ... 23 ... 42, 43, 44  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum